Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7287939" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Hence the dichotomy: The MM can work when the DM plays a monster like a stupid meatsack against players with a similar grasp of tactics, both in combat, and in character optimisation.It can also work when the DM uses cunning tactics against a party that have optimised their characters and relish the challenge of tactical problems.It falls down however, both where the DM plays optimally but the players don't want to (they find countering the tactics unfun, and lose charaters), and where the players are optimised but the DM doesn't want to: - (The party wins too easily, making it unfun for the DM and possibly also the players.)&nbsp;Hmm. Maybe &quot;some players&quot;. Assuming you're talking about when in combat rather than just before.&nbsp;That's fair enough. It might be worth sorting out a &quot;brute&quot; template that can be applied to an existing monster designed with intelligent tactics in mind to be able to just stand there and get beat on by an entire party for a few rounds. Lots of extra HP, additional attacks in response to party member's actions, probably buffing its saves and/or legendary resistance etc.&nbsp;Sitting in the middle of a party, letting them all apply their best attacks at optimal range while just rolling the basic attacks listed in a monsters statblock isn't a &quot;big set-piece combat&quot;. Its just an exercise in statistical distribution.&nbsp;Your demands have been heard by us and will be treated with all due endeavours.&nbsp;Its generally assumed that a DM is of the same capability as their players in terms of tactics and optimal character/monster building. A monster built on the basis of letting a new DM handle experienced, optimising players is going to wipe out a group of new players when played by an intelligent DM. And vice versa.But yes, it is indeed generally up to the DM to make D&amp;D work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 7287939, member: 6802951"] Hence the dichotomy: The MM can work when the DM plays a monster like a stupid meatsack against players with a similar grasp of tactics, both in combat, and in character optimisation. It can also work when the DM uses cunning tactics against a party that have optimised their characters and relish the challenge of tactical problems. It falls down however, both where the DM plays optimally but the players don't want to (they find countering the tactics unfun, and lose charaters), and where the players are optimised but the DM doesn't want to: - (The party wins too easily, making it unfun for the DM and possibly also the players.) Hmm. Maybe "some players". Assuming you're talking about when in combat rather than just before. That's fair enough. It might be worth sorting out a "brute" template that can be applied to an existing monster designed with intelligent tactics in mind to be able to just stand there and get beat on by an entire party for a few rounds. Lots of extra HP, additional attacks in response to party member's actions, probably buffing its saves and/or legendary resistance etc. Sitting in the middle of a party, letting them all apply their best attacks at optimal range while just rolling the basic attacks listed in a monsters statblock isn't a "big set-piece combat". Its just an exercise in statistical distribution. Your demands have been heard by us and will be treated with all due endeavours. Its generally assumed that a DM is of the same capability as their players in terms of tactics and optimal character/monster building. A monster built on the basis of letting a new DM handle experienced, optimising players is going to wipe out a group of new players when played by an intelligent DM. And vice versa. But yes, it is indeed generally up to the DM to make D&D work. [/QUOTE]

Verification